Sun Yat-Sen Thought, Centennial of the ROC, And Development Models in Taiwan and Mainland China: A Macro Analytical Framework Yu-Shan Wu Institute of Political Science Academia Sinica ABSTRACT It would do no justice to a review of the Republic of China’s centennial development if focus is cast exclusively on the ROC’ early period on the Chinese mainland, the authoritarian era in Taiwan, or the two decades after democratization. This article attempts to provide a broad overview of the century of the Republic by putting the ROC’s three developmental stages in a theoretical framework, pointing out the mechanisms of transitions, and capturing the grand trends in historical development. We observe three subjects: Sun Yat-sen’s Thoughts, the practice of the ROC, and the post-1949 development on mainland China. These three produce seven observation points on a two-dimensional map laid out by the axes of state political control and state economic control. Three political systems are identified on the political axis: liberal democracy, modernizing authoritarianism, and totalitarianism, as well as three property rights structures/economic systems on the economic axis: market capitalism, state capitalism, and state socialism, based on different levels of political and economic control by the state. This gives rise to nine institutional combinations against which the seven observation points can be located. When state political control matches economic control the institutional combination is most stable, followed by high political control cum low economic control. The least sustainable is when low political control is paired with high economic control. On the institutional map Sun Yet-sen’s Thoughts migrated from democratic state capitalism to authoritarian state capitalism, with the ultimate ideal point remaining unchanged. The ROC shifted from a limited form of authoritarian state capitalism (while on the mainland) to full authoritarian state capitalism (prior to democratization in Taiwan), and finally to democratic market capitalism (after democratization in Taiwan). The PRC transitioned from totalitarian state socialism under Mao Zedong to post-totalitarian state capitalism during post-Mao, and particularly during the post-Tiananmen period. Because high political control is paired with low economic control, this system demonstrated considerable institutional resilience, capable of overcoming the challenge posed by a series of politico-economic crises. Institutional isomorphism is found among Sun Yat-sen’s later thoughts, the ROC’s authoritarian stage, and contemporary China. The mainland has moved into Taiwan’s institutional past. Whether there would be further institutional convergence between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait is determined by the relative rate of the rise of national capability compared with institutional change on the mainland. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Conference of the American Association for Chinese Studies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, October 15, 2011. Sun Yat-sen Thought, Centennial of the ROC, And Development Models in Taiwan and Mainland China: A Macro Analytical Framework The Republic of China (ROC) is moving into the second century. Its one-hundred-year history is divided into two periods: the four decades on the Chinese mainland and the following sixty years in Taiwan. The Taiwan period is further divided by the watershed of democratization: forty years under authoritarian rule followed by two decades of democracy. A review of the century would not be complete if our focus is cast exclusively on the mainland period, on the authoritarian rule, or on nascent democracy. This paper attempts to provide a theoretical framework for an overview of the ROC’s centennial history, point out the mechanisms of transitions, and capture the grand trends in the country’s development. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Republic of China have been a counter force to the Kuomintang the ROC. The two rivals waxed and waned in opposite directions. Since 1921 the CCP constituted a major armed opposition in China, opposed to whatever regime in power. It was suppressed by the Nationalists for two decades. The tide was turned in 1949, with the Nationalist Government fleeing to Taiwan and the PRC regime established in Beijing, controlling the absolute bulk of the Chinese territory. Two stages can be discerned in post-1949 China. The first three decades were characterized by Mao Zedong’s continued revolution under proletarian dictatorship, followed by another thirty years of reform and open-door policy. As in the case of the ROC, a review of the PRC’s history cannot neglect either of the two main stages. The “Great Leap Forward” and “Cultural Revolution” are as much characteristic of the Chinese Communist rule as “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” and “China Model.” Both need to be fully recognized if one wants to grasp the dynamic and turbulent history of the People’s Republic. Why is it necessary to involve the PRC when discussing the centennial development of the ROC? This is because the ROC has always set China as its stage, even when it is confined to Taiwan. The two sides are interlocked, although the relationship has been full of tension and conflict. More importantly in this paper, our analytical framework for the ROC can go a long way in shedding light on the mainland’s development, thus bringing greater depth into our understanding of both cases. 1 The centennial history of the ROC is turbulent, heavily constrained by the environment when it comes to fulfilling the ideals of its founding father Dr. Sun Yat-sen. It is true that there has always been a wide gap between Sun’s ideals and the reality. However, one cannot miss the deep impact that Sun’s doctrine leaves in the institutions and policies of the Republic. In the post -1949 mainland Sun is considered a predecessor of bourgeois democratic revolution, honored as the leader who led a movement that overthrew the Manchu Dynasty. This revolutionary stature is coupled with his later policy of alliance with the Soviet Union and incorporation of China’s nascent communist movement into the Kuomintang to give Sun a high standing. The founding father of the ROC is respected by both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Interestingly, Sun’s ideas of state building easily lend themselves to an analysis in our framework, making them comparable to the practices of the ROC and the PRC. The practices of the two Chinas are not fixed, nor are Sun’s ideas immobile. They evolved with time and adapted to changing environment. Once we discern the locations of the three in our analytical framework and delineate their trajectories of development, their relationships become obvious. We can then gauge the possibility that the three converge towards a common institutional mix, suggesting Sun’s ideas may ultimately bring the two sides of the Taiwan Strait to a common ground. Analytical Framework China entered the modern age as an agrarian empire overwhelmed by Western imperialism and forced to respond as a late developer (Kopstein and Lichbach, 2005: 11). There are finite ways with which a late developer can respond to the challenge posed by the West. Some imitated the early developers. Some emphasized the role of the state to accelerate catch-up (Gerschenkron, 1962). These models of response can be differentiated in two respects: regime type and property rights structures (Wu Yu-Shan, 1996: 193). Three regime types are discernable: liberal democracy, modernizing authoritarianism, and totalitarianism. The major differences among the three are in the level of the state’s independence from society and the arbitrary power it wields. In both regards totalitarianism is higher than modernizing authoritarianism, which in turn is higher than democracy.1 On the front of property rights structure and 1 Juan Linz and Alfred C. Stepan (1996) modify the traditional three-way regime classification scheme and add post-totalitarian and sultanistic regimes, thus coming up with five regime types. In this paper, post-totalitarianism is considered a special type of authoritarianism, and sultanistic regimes are not a developmental model, but a phenomenon that combines specific development pattern and a 2 economic system, we can also differentiate among three types: market capitalism, state capitalism, and state socialism. They differ mainly in the degree of state involvement in the economy: state socialism penetrates into the economy deeper than state capitalism, and state capitalism deeper than market capitalism. 2 In an institutional framework laid out by three regime types and three property rights structures, we can pinpoint the institutional choices of various late developers. Liberal democracy and totalitarianism are opposing extremes. The former is characterized by multiple independent parties competing in a fair environment with guarantees of civil liberties and political rights. The latter has only one omnipotent party that monopolizes power and exercises full control over the society. State power is concentrated indefinitely and extended indefinitely. Multi-party competition is non-existent. Modernizing authoritarianism lies between liberal democracy and totalitarianism. This regime type is multi-morphous, with power concentrated in a party, the military or royal family. Opposition parties may exist in form, but none is capable of challenging the incumbents. Political environment is highly regulated, rendering party competition meaningless. In sum, we may use whether there exist independent political actors, and whether they operate in a free political market as two criteria to differentiate among different regime types. Independent actors and free market are only useful criteria against which economic systems can be classified. Under state socialism means of production are by and large owned by the state (public ownership), rendering a single economic actor. Economic bureaucrats are agents of the state. Their decisions on production, exchange and distribution are based state plan and directions issued by their superiors, not in pursuit of enterprise profit on a competitive market. Single actor and non-competitive behaviors characterize state socialism.